I am not in the business of discouraging writers. I don't think any authors are, actually. There's no worry about there being more competition, no Machiavellian desire to stop the young and the talented from making it (whatever 'it' is). Far more, the opposite is true - writers want there to be more stories, more books, and more people making art (and here let me point you in the direction of Zen Pencils' rendering of Neil Gaiman's Make Good Art speech. It is worth your time).
I read last week that the average income of writers who took the 2014 Digital Book World and Writer's Digest Author Survey is £600. That is not enough to live on. It's not actually enough to pay my rent for one month.
The reality is that being a writer means not having a lot of money, and telling stories anyway. Writing not because of the income but in spite of it. Writing for the story's sake. That's the point I want to make: don't become a writer because you want to be a writer. That's a false dream and it gets you frustrated. Being a writer because you want a lifestyle or a title or widespread acclamation is not going to make you happy.
I believe authors should get paid fairly. I am not saying that you should happily give out your art for free. That's a trap only the privileged can set. What I am saying, though, is that reality needs to be faced and when it comes down to it, you're going to need something more than 'wanting to be a writer' to keep you going: you're going to need to want to tell your stories.
[Side note - this is different to the 'I write because I must! I write because I cannot help it!' philosophy that, personally, I've always found a little bit fluffy. I'm advocating writing because you like it, rather than writing because you like what it brings].
There's a way of looking at the world that defines a person's worth by how famous they are, how successful, how many medals and dollars and contracts they have. It's a view that goes hand in hand with idol worship (and idealization), and people can confuse jealousy with inspiration, and can mix up desire for recognition with passion for creation. Wanting to become an author so you can be JK Rowling or Ian McEwan is a bad, bad idea. Wanting to be an author because they inspired you to write your own stories, and because you think that others should read what you write, is a special, brilliant magic.
See the difference, though? It's the difference between following your own dreams and staring enviously at the stars while you punish yourself for not shining brightly enough. Writers can't be in it for the money, so, at the end of the day, they have to be in it for the writing.
The creative industries are going through an incredible Renaissance at the moment, but it's a period of flux where the pay of artists is, in general, going down. That might be bad or it might be good. There are arguments both ways. Ivory towers might be falling - the Internet is the great leveler, after all - but if only those who are self-sufficient can afford to make art then we do a terrible injustice to our own society and to those who might just have the most creative passion of all - the downtrodden and the oppressed. So, who knows what's coming?
No answers here.
If you would write regardless of recognition or reward, with or without the hope of publication, then that is what you should do, because there are going to be hard times and you are going to need to push through.
It's amazing when you do, though. Those are the moments to cherish.
Writers of the world, pick up your pens - and have a great time doing it.
To find out more about Simon and his forthcoming novel, Eren, please visit his website. You can also follow Simon on Twitter as @sipclark.
I still posted it on Twitter - thanks for sharing i! The sentiment remains.
It's no big deal, but I have found it a problem sourcing quotes and attributing them to the original authors. No-one has been more misquoted than Shakespeare. Tennyson is one of many authors whose quotes have been attributed to Shakespeare. Throughout history many quotes have been reworded so they appear to be original.
I liked the Hawthorn quote, too, though it might not be by Hawthorne (see the 'disputed' section at the bottom of this - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Hawthorne). Either way, good sentiments.
Two hundred words is better than none, any day. Agree with Christopher, too - quality and passion always important, and style tends to come out in editing, while first draft (for me) is for plot.